SFI Activist Abhimanyu Murder Case: Kerala High Court Refuses To Halt Trial Till Completion Of Probe Against Co-Accused

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (October 13) refused to halt the trial in the murder of SFI Activist Abhimanyu, which is pending before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 576]

Abhimanyu was stabbed to death in 2018 during a campus political rivalry at Maharaja's College in Ernakulam. Presently, trial is pending before the Sessions Court against 16 accused (Accused Nos. 1 to 16). However, investigation is ongoing against 10 accused (Accused Nos. 17 to 26), who are alleged to have harboured the first 16 accused.

Justice C. Jayachandran dismissed the plea preferred by accused nos. 24 and 25, finding that there are no merits in it.

"Primarily, this Court notice that the petitioners could not point out any specific prejudice due to the conduct of the trial, as against accused nos.1 to 16. It is foundational that the evidence in a criminal trial has to be let in only in the presence of the accused persons as enjoined by Section 273 Cr.P.C, wherefore, the evidence which will be adduced in the trial, as against accused nos.1 to 16 cannot be used against the petitioners (accused nos. 24 and 25)," the Court reasoned.

Referring to an Apex Court decision, the Court added that joint trial of the main accused and harbouring accused is not necessary and the same would only prolong the trial, which is already delayed.

The Court further opined that since there is marked difference in the accusations made against the main 16 accused and the accused nos. 17 to 26, the nature of the evidence in these two cases would be different.

Taking note of the directions to expedite trial passed by a coordinate bench, the Court was of the view that any interfere would upset the schedule of the trial and prejudice the victim. It said:

"the case stands scheduled for trial for eighteen consecutive days, commencing from 15.10.2026. Any interference at this belated stage would upset and unsettle the schedule of trial, leading to non-compliance of the directions...This is all the more so, when the petitioners cannot espouse and establish a clear legal injury or prejudice in proceeding with such trial. In this regard, this Court cannot loose sight of the right of the victim too, of a speedy trial..."

The Court also noted that a similar plea was preferred by 4 of the main accused and was dismissed by a co-ordinate bench.

The petitioners contended that they were arrested in 2018 itself but the investigation against them is not yet complete and final report also not filed. They had earlier approached the High Court in another plea seeking to expedite the investigation against them but inspite of a direction to the investigating officer, there is no progress, it was argued.

It was pointed out that there are around 156 witnesses to be examined by the prosecution and they may to be called again during the trial of the petitioners. This, they argued, may give an advantage to the prosecution to fill up the lacunae and cure the deficiencies in the prosecution case.

The petitioners alleged that they would be prejudiced due to their absence in the trial of the accused nos. 1 to 16. They sought to expedite the investigation against them and to halt the trial against accused 1 to 16.

The prosecutor submitted that the petitioners are accused of harbouring the accused nos. 1 to 16, who actively participated in the crime. Moreover, there is a direction to expedite the trial made in a plea filed by the victim's mother. It was pointed out that the trial is scheduled for 18 days continuously from October 15 and any interference now would seriously prejudice the prosecution. He also pointed out that a similar plea was made by four accused earlier and that the Court had refused to grant an order in their favour.

The victim's mother/de facto complainant contended that this was an attempt to procrastinate the trial, which has been considerably delayed.

After hearing the parties, the Court felt that there were no merits in the plea and that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners if the trial against the main accused are conducted in their absence.

Thus, it dismissed the plea.

Counsel for the petitioners: P. Vijayabhanu (Sr.), E.A.Haris, M.A. Ahammad Saheer, Muhammed Yasil, Aagi Johny

Counsel for the respondents: T.A. Asaf Ali - DGP, K.S. Arun Kumar, Devika K.R., Laliza T.Y. - Sr. Government Pleader, Rasheed C. Nooranad - Special Government Pleader